CJ overrules judgment in police exams case

Three policemen, who were granted certain reliefs by a High Court judge in a judicial review proceeding against the Director of Personnel Administration (DPA) and the Police Service Commission (PSC) had them taken away yesterday by the Appeal Court. The three policemen, Eusebio Cooper, Clifford Balbosa and Derek Junior Birjah, will now have to pay the costs in both the Court of Appeal and the court below fit for both senior and junior counsel. The issue raised in the appeal was whether the trial judge was correct in deciding that the Cabinet-appointed Public Service Examination Board was unconstitutional as being in breach of the Doctrine of the Separation of Powers.

Cooper and Balbosa had sat promotional exams for the rank of police sergeant in August 2002, while Birjah’s exam was for the rank of corporal. The examinations were set by a board in accordance with an established practice since 1966, when Cabinet appointed the board to regulate all examinations throughout the Public Service, namely the Prison Service, the Fire Service and the Police Service. About 11 months later, July 2003, when the examination results for August 2002 were not released, the policemen filed for judicial review seeking several declarations. Justice Myers, who dealt with the judicial review proceedings made several orders.

The DPA and the PSC appealed against Justice Myers’ orders and the Court of Appeal comprising Chief Justice Satnarine Sharma and Justices Rolston Nelson and Wendell Kangaloo allowed the appeal. In a 23-page judgment the CJ said under the rules of the Supreme Court, as well as the judicial review act, a judge can make an order of mandamus requiring a person, corporation or tribunal to perform a specified public duty relating to its responsibilities. Although the judge has a discretion to make these orders, there are certain limits to this discretion. The order must command the party to do no more than it is legally bound to perform.

The CJ also stated that the judge had ordered restrictions on the commission regarding additional promotions in the Police Service. The PSC is not legally bound to stop promotions or to restrict promotions in any way. “Under Chapter III of the PSC regulations, it is clearly seen that the role of the PSC deals with appointments, promotions and transfers and therefore any restrictions imposed on promotions where a party has followed the necessary avenues for promotions may lead to allegations of prejudice and unfairness. “The Cabinet-appointed board did not violate any principle of the Constitution. It is my respectful view that the judge was not justified in restricting further promotions in the Police Service. Neither was he justified in imposing time limits, since the PSC was not the body responsible for appointing the board,” the CJ said.